Changes in the global regulatory environment for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries are having a significant impact on how new products are developed and marketed. Throughout the 1990s, major efforts in global harmonization of regulatory requirements were made by several organizations. In the pharmaceutical industry, the many new guidelines for quality, safety, and efficacy are being implemented in Europe, Japan, and the United States, while work continues to develop the Common Technical Document for the format and content of new market applications. In the medical device industry, the implementation of the European CE Mark and the work of the Global Harmonization Task Force is revolutionizing the regulatory environment. These global efforts along with the national movements to reorganize local regulatory environments in Europe and the United States are discussed.
Anon. A Brief Guide to the EC Rules Governing Medicines.5th Ed.Brussels, Belgium: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations; April 1994.
2.
SauerF.A new and fast drug approval system in Europe. Drug Inf J.1997;31:1–6.
3.
JonesK.Wider perspectives of European medicines control. Drug Inf J.1996;30:1–7.
Anon. Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures, Final Rule. Electronic Submissions; Establishment of Public Docket, Notice. Fed Reg. 3/20/97. 62 (54): 13430–13466.
7.
FDA.Guidance to Industry. Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drugs and Biological Products. May 1998.
8.
FDA, Center for Drug Research and Evaluation.Report to Industry1996. 2/10/97.
9.
Anon.Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 1998 Report to the Nation. Improving Public Health Through Human Drugs. (www.fda.gov/cder/reports/rptntn98.pdf).
SegalDERubinPDMutual recognition agreement between the United States and European Union signals new era of device and drug regulation. RA Focus.1997;2(9):20–21.
12.
US Congress, Senate bill S.830: Food and Drug Administration Modernization and Accountability Act of 1997.
HarmanR.ICH 4—The End of the Beginning. Reg Aff J.1997;8:713–714.
15.
Anon. The ICH Process for Harmonisation of Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: IFPMA; 1997. (Internet: www.ifpma.org/ich4/html).
16.
MillerD.International Conference on Harmonization: The End or Just the Beginning. RA Focus.1997;2(3):6–9.
17.
Anon.ICH on Target for the New Millenium, Press Release, Washington, D.C.: IFPMA; 10/8/99. (www.ifpma.org.ich7).
18.
de CrémiersF.ICH M4/The Common Technical Document (CTD): Comparison of clinical documents and summaries of assessment practices in the United States, Europe and Japan. Drug Inf J.1999;33:601–614.
19.
MöllerH.A Common Technical Document of quality: A nightmare or reality?RA Focus.1997;2(3):10–11.
20.
Council of European Communities, Medical Device Directive. 93/42/EEC. Brussels, Belgium: European Community; June 1993.
21.
VerdonckP, Ed. The Medical Device Directives. Passport to the Future.Brussels, Belgium: Baxter World Trade; 1995, pp. 14.
22.
MortonM.Canadian medical device proposal includes new requirements for premarket notification. RA Focus.1996;1(11):10–11.
23.
BurlingtonDBNew Directions in Medical Device Regulation. An FDA Progress Report. FDA, Center for Device Evaluation and Radiological Health, Rockville, MD, September 8, 1997. (Internet www.fda.gov/cdrh/medev/medevreg.html).
SawyerD.Do it by design. An Introduction to Human Factors in Medical Devices. FDA Guidance.Rockville, MD: CDRH; December 1996.
26.
FreedmanDPWeinbergGMHandbook of Walkthroughs, Inspections, and Technical Reviews.3rd Ed., New York, NY: Dorset House; 1990, p 12.
27.
KahanJSFDA's revised GMP regulations. The road to global improvement?Med Device Diag Indust.1994;16(5):128–132.
28.
RileyWJDensfordJWIIIProcesses, techniques and tools: The how of a successful design control system. Med Device Diag Indust.1997;19(10): 74–80.
29.
FDA.Design Control Guidance for Medical Device Manufacturers.Rockville, MD: FDA, CDRH; 3/1997.
30.
FDA.Medical Device Quality System Manual. A Small Entity Compliance Guide.Rockville, MD: FDA, CDRH: December 1996.
31.
The Quality System Compendium.Arlington, VA: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; 1996.
32.
DickinsonJGIn its bold new course, FDA needs industry help. Med Device Diag Indust.1997;19(6): 52–55.
33.
FDA.A New 510(k) Paradigm: Alternative Approaches to Demonstrating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications.Rockville, MD: FDA, CDRH; 3/98.
34.
United States of America—European Community Mutual Recognition Agreement of Conformity Assessment.Sectorial Annex on Medical Devices. US/EC Final Draft; 6/5/97.
35.
WechslerJ.Modernization in China and an MRA at home. Pharma Tech.1997;9:16–28.
36.
WechslerJ.Electronic submissions and harmonized inspections. Appl Clin Trials.1997;6(3):16–22.
37.
JacobsonEDA Year in Review: An Annual Report by the GHTF Chair. June 1999. (www.ghtf.org).
38.
ColburnWAMcClurgJECichorackiJRThe strategic role of outsourcing. CROs and the outsourcing phenomenon. Appl Clin Trials.1997;6(9):68–75.
